AMAR KAUR Vs. HARCHAND SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is against the dismissal of the petition for compensation for death that was found to have occurred by the involvement of the vehicle belonging to the PRTC bus bearing No.PJG - 7443. The Tribunal found that the petitioner had not proved that the accident was the result of negligent driving of the driver of the bus.

(2.) BEFORE the Tribunal, evidence of two eyewitnesses, who were co -passengers in the bus, had been examined. The accident had taken place on 10.03.1988 at 5 PM. The evidence was that the deceased was trying to get down at Sirhind road bye -pass turning and the bus, which had slowed down, had not fully stopped, but picked up speed at the signal when the Conductor gave the whistle. Consequently, the deceased fell down and came unde the tyre of the vehicle. He was crushed at the back wheel of the bus and taken to the A.P.Jain Hospital where he died. This evidence was given by PW -5 and PW -6, Kartar Singh, who was said to be yet another witness supported the same version. However, the Court found that there was discrepancy about the identity of the deceased and, therefore, the driver of the bus could not be made responsible. The Tribunal found that the two witnesses, who did not know the name of the driver, did not implicate the respondent -driver and, therefore, negligence could not be established.

(3.) HERE , in this case, there was a clear evidence of two witnesses, who spoke about the slowing down of the bus and the sudden acceleration of the bus on account of whistle blown by the Conductor even before the passenger fully alighted. This evidence could have been explained by the Driver that even before he stopped the vehicle, the deceased had gotten down and he had not accelerated the vehicle suddenly resulting in the passenger to fall out of the vehicle. If this explanation had been forthcoming, it could have been natural and could have exculpated the driver. On the other hand, if the driver was completely denying the accident, then the inference must only be that the witnesses PW -5 and PW -6 had spoken about the negligent act of the driver in accelerating the bus even before the passenger got down from the vehicle. This evidence itself is sufficient to render the respondent -driver as being guilty of negligent driving. The exoneration of the driver has been occasioned on a wrong reasoning of the Tribunal that the two witnesses did not give cogent evidence about the identity of the driver, who drove the vehicle on that day. If the driver himself did not deny that he was driving the vehicle, then the fact that a person died must have resulted only due to the driving of the respondent in a negligent manner as spoken to by PW5 and PW6. The Tribunal was clearly wrong in finding that the witnesses did not involve the respondent Harchand Singh for rash and negligent driving. If the witnesses did not know the name of the driver, it was only natural that a passenger could not have known the name, unless he was previously acquainted. The logical reasoning that a person died on a particular day by the bus running over him and a DDR entry referred that the driver himself had taken the deceased to the hospital, the Court must have seen that the driver had something to hide. Section 134 of the Motor Vehicles Act casts a responsibility for a driver to not merely provide medical help, but also give a report to the police as soon as possible and preferably not later than 24 hours. The driver failed in every count in the statutory responsibility that the Act enjoins.